Jekyll2018-08-12T11:24:38+00:00http://onnlucky.com/@onnluckySome musings around skepticism, naturalism, epistemology, atheism. And all the deep stuff we observe around us, how to place it, what drives it. Bottom-up systems, self-organizing systems, consciousness.Aware Will2018-08-12T00:00:00+00:002018-08-12T00:00:00+00:00http://onnlucky.com/2018/08/12/aware-will<p><img src="/images/sand.jpg" alt="Apostle Paul" class="right" />
Neither predetermined choices nor random choices are free choices. Therefor, neither a deterministic universe, nor a universe where <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinamen">atoms sometimes randomly swerve</a>, can host <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will">free will</a><sup id="fnref:libertarian"><a href="#fn:libertarian" class="footnote">1</a></sup>, or so the argument goes. I will argue that determinism is fully compatible with free will.</p>
<p>Firstly, because a universe like ours is a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory">chaotic system</a>, a deterministic universe is only computable<sup id="fnref:computable"><a href="#fn:computable" class="footnote">2</a></sup>, not predictable. That is, you could compute the next state if the current state was known. But you cannot jump ahead in time and calculate, unless you go at it step by step simulating every atom<sup id="fnref:atoms"><a href="#fn:atoms" class="footnote">3</a></sup>.</p>
<p>Secondly, atoms don’t make choices nor desire things. But atoms in certain configurations can learn to recognize <a href="https://ai.google/research/pubs/pub38115">cats in videos</a>. And atoms in a brain-like<sup id="fnref:brain"><a href="#fn:brain" class="footnote">4</a></sup> configurations can learn to model the world, imagine futures, to guess<sup id="fnref:reason"><a href="#fn:reason" class="footnote">5</a></sup> what its options are, to weight consequences of each option against desires — and then choose. Moreover, as we do so, we feel like something, we are conscious, we are aware.</p>
<p>Because choices and awareness go hand in hand and no choice can be predicted unless simulated step by step, atom by atom, we can say that we have aware will. Nobody can predict our choices, unless by letting us be aware<sup id="fnref:isolated"><a href="#fn:isolated" class="footnote">6</a></sup> and let us make those choices. The rest of the argument will show aware will is the same as free will.</p>
<h3 id="thought-experiment">Thought Experiment</h3>
<p>As a thought experiment, imagine a deity<sup id="fnref:existence"><a href="#fn:existence" class="footnote">7</a></sup> who blesses some people with the gift of free will. On their 7th birthday, this deity shows them all the beauty of the universe and beyond. Grants them temporarily perfect knowledge; grants them free will. And asks them to select some things they really want. Then rewires the 7 year old brain accordingly. The next day, these children are no longer a product of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_chain">causal chain</a><sup id="fnref:chain"><a href="#fn:chain" class="footnote">8</a></sup>, are no more a victim of determinism, no longer part of the whole show<sup id="fnref:show"><a href="#fn:show" class="footnote">9</a></sup>, but are free.</p>
<p>As these kids grow up, go through life learning, experiencing, self-reflecting, will they be different from the rest of us? Circumstances will still shape them as it shapes us. They will make choices, and how the future unfolds still depends on those choices. Same for us. At age 30, nobody can tell the difference between the people who were given free will at age of 7 and the rest of us.</p>
<p><img src="/images/blur-road.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<h3 id="layering-violation">Layering Violation</h3>
<p>Atoms don’t make choices, that is the wrong layer to be analyzing the the situation from. Choices are made by minds that can imagine futures, guess their options, and have goals and preferences by which to weight those options. The universe doesn’t give those things to minds, nor forces them on minds. Instead, minds learn them.</p>
<p>Places in the universe where there are minds are profoundly different than places where there are none. It is not the universe that is in control of this, but minds. How the future unfolds around a mind is very much dependent on the choices such a mind makes. And they do so in a way indistinguishable from a truly free mind.</p>
<p>A deterministic universe, or something fairly close to it<sup id="fnref:preroll"><a href="#fn:preroll" class="footnote">10</a></sup>, is required for our brains to exist and function. But such a universe has no <em>predetermined</em> choices. While it will only unfold in one way, that unfolding fundamentally depends on the minds inside and the choices they make as they are aware.</p>
<div class="footnotes">
<ol>
<li id="fn:libertarian">
<p>Another option is libertarian free will. Which posits the mind is not physically bound and can control its choices free from external constraints. But either this is an incoherent argument, or such a mind is a bad model or reality. Moreover, this passes the buck only one level up, the same problem of free will continues to exist. <a href="#fnref:libertarian" class="reversefootnote">&#8617;</a></p>
</li>
<li id="fn:computable">
<p>This is impossible for three reasons: 1. quantum mechanics doesn’t allow us to know enough; 2. no computer simulation can be faster than the original; 3. a higher level simulation might work, but is unlikely to be high fidelity enough to compute anything far ahead in time. <a href="#fnref:computable" class="reversefootnote">&#8617;</a></p>
</li>
<li id="fn:atoms">
<p>The most fundamental things in our universe are not atoms. But this makes it easier to present the argument. <a href="#fnref:atoms" class="reversefootnote">&#8617;</a></p>
</li>
<li id="fn:brain">
<p>Our minds are our brains. But the brain is a distributed system that functions very different from how it feels to our minds. See also the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet">Libet experiments</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will">neuroscience of free will</a>. <a href="#fnref:brain" class="reversefootnote">&#8617;</a></p>
</li>
<li id="fn:reason">
<p>to reason about its options <a href="#fnref:reason" class="reversefootnote">&#8617;</a></p>
</li>
<li id="fn:isolated">
<p>Do note that the original you would have no access to the copy of you that is being used to predict your choices. But that doesn’t mean that copy-you isn’t aware. If it wasn’t, how would it come to the same choice? <a href="#fnref:isolated" class="reversefootnote">&#8617;</a></p>
</li>
<li id="fn:existence">
<p>For obvious reasons, such a deity does not exist. But this is a thought experiment, not a real experiment. Please suspend your disbelief until the point has been illustrated. <a href="#fnref:existence" class="reversefootnote">&#8617;</a></p>
</li>
<li id="fn:chain">
<p>“On determinism, every state of affairs was determined by a prior state of the universe, and every future state is determined by the present state. In short, everything that happens was going to happen from the onset of the big bang, and if that’s true, there is no free will.” <a href="https://www.freewilldocumentary.com/about">source</a> <a href="#fnref:chain" class="reversefootnote">&#8617;</a></p>
</li>
<li id="fn:show">
<p>C.S. Lewis in his book Miracles talks about “the whole show”: “Thus no thoroughgoing Naturalist believes in free will: for free will would mean that human beings have the power of independent action, the power of doing something more or other than what was involved by the total series of events. And any such separate power of originating events is what the Naturalist denies. Spontaneity, originality, action “on its own,” is a privilege reserved for “the whole show,” which he calls Nature.” <a href="#fnref:show" class="reversefootnote">&#8617;</a></p>
</li>
<li id="fn:preroll">
<p>A random universe is equivalent to a deterministic universe from a computer science perspective: instead of “rolling a dice” per random event, pre-roll all dice rolls required and record the outcomes, then run the universe using the list pre-rolled dice outcomes. <a href="#fnref:preroll" class="reversefootnote">&#8617;</a></p>
</li>
</ol>
</div>Neither predetermined choices nor random choices are free choices. Therefor, neither a deterministic universe, nor a universe where atoms sometimes randomly swerve, can host free will1, or so the argument goes. I will argue that determinism is fully compatible with free will. Another option is libertarian free will. Which posits the mind is not physically bound and can control its choices free from external constraints. But either this is an incoherent argument, or such a mind is a bad model or reality. Moreover, this passes the buck only one level up, the same problem of free will continues to exist. &#8617;Knowledge, Belief, Attitude2018-06-01T00:00:00+00:002018-06-01T00:00:00+00:00http://onnlucky.com/2018/06/01/attitudes<p><img src="/images/harrypotter.jpg" alt="Harry Potter" class="right" />
In social psychology <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attitude_(psychology)">knowledge, attitude, belief</a> is an <a href="https://scholar.google.nl/scholar?q=knowledge+attitude+belief">often used model</a> for what goes on in our minds. I find it very useful when talking about beliefs:</p>
<ul>
<li>knowledge: facts, causal relations, or <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_model">mental models</a> within a certain domain;</li>
<li>belief: how correct is a piece of knowledge is given its domain;</li>
<li>attitude: does it matter (to me or others); is it morally good or bad<sup id="fnref:meta"><a href="#fn:meta" class="footnote">1</a></sup>.</li>
</ul>
<p>For example: “<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter">Harry Potter</a> is a wizard” is a piece of knowledge. I believe it to be correct given that it relates to this fantasy world invented by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._K._Rowling">J.K. Rowling</a>. From an attitude perspective, some people might think the stories invite magic and occult forces and are therefor evil; others might think it fosters supernatural intuitions about the real world and thus hurt education; though for most it is just harmless entertainment.</p>
<h3 id="attitudes-inform-beliefs">Attitudes Inform Beliefs</h3>
<p>What happens a lot is that our attitudes inform our beliefs, even when the belief is about reality. <a href="/2018/03/20/skepticism.html">This is a mistake.</a> For example, we might belief a hurricane approaching our city is bad, but such a belief will never change reality, so be prepared or evacuate. Yet <em>aligning our attitudes with our peers</em> is normal, it enables <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_intentionality">shared intentions</a> and avoids conflict. For example, if most people believe that graveyards are sacred places, violating that sacredness reduces ones standing in the community and risks punishment.</p>
<p>Beliefs about reality informed by attitudes are easy to spot using the following markers<sup id="fnref:score"><a href="#fn:score" class="footnote">2</a></sup>:</p>
<ol>
<li>People holding them will be <a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2015/11/22/the-problem-of-selective-skepticism/">selectively skeptic</a>, that is, they will seem to be weighting the evidence for two competing models of the world differently. Adding on more and more excuses or ad-hoc explanations to maintain the belief.</li>
<li>Because such beliefs are linked to values and morality, such people are quick to accuse those with different ideas as immoral. But without being able to point out any evidence of bad behavior or even bad intentions. At best they argue about some indirect consequences they think will come about — often using the very ideas in dispute.</li>
<li>Using the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotive_conjugation">emotive conjugation</a> a lot without objective justification. For example, after a debate, describing one side as: stubborn (negative); didn’t change his/her mind (neutral); unwavering in the truth (positive).</li>
</ol>
<h3 id="warning">Warning</h3>
<p>But a big warning is required here. It is very easy to see this behavior in others even when it is not there, while not recognizing this behavior in ourselves. The only antidote is understanding the position of the other person from a <strong>knowledge</strong> perspective. That is, being able to <em>reason about it</em>, while <strong>not believing</strong> it and <strong>not accepting</strong> the values or morality behind it. And to try and look at our own beliefs as objectively as possible.</p>
<p>Have <a href="https://www.saffo.com/02008/07/26/strong-opinions-weakly-held/">“strong opinions, weakly held”</a>. And know that in the context of knowledge, changing ones mind based on evidence is a virtue. (Also see <a href="/2018/03/20/skepticism.html#role-of-skepticism">previous</a>.)</p>
<h3 id="right-but-for-the-wrong-reasons">Right, but for the Wrong Reasons</h3>
<p>What can happen (a lot) is that people are on the side that has the most reason and evidence behind it. But the issue has become very personal, political and moralizing. They go into arguments using all the markers discussed above. Becoming less and less effective in convincing others, while blaming it more and more on how stupid those with different beliefs must be.</p>
<p><img src="/images/argument.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<div class="footnotes">
<ol>
<li id="fn:meta">
<p>In a weird meta way, what we believe and what matters to us, is also knowledge. Knowledge in the domain of beliefs, and knowledge in the domain of what matters. <a href="#fnref:meta" class="reversefootnote">&#8617;</a></p>
</li>
<li id="fn:score">
<p>Using this idea, we can score discussions purely based on such and other markers: articulate a tradeoff (+2); fairly articulate opposing view (+2); reasons based on content (+1); using a fallacy (-1); using a straw man (-2); ad hominem attacks (-3); guessing moral attitude of opponent (-10). This hardly requires any knowledge of the content of the discussion. <a href="#fnref:score" class="reversefootnote">&#8617;</a></p>
</li>
</ol>
</div>In social psychology knowledge, attitude, belief is an often used model for what goes on in our minds. I find it very useful when talking about beliefs:Is DNA a Code?2018-05-22T00:00:00+00:002018-05-22T00:00:00+00:00http://onnlucky.com/2018/05/22/is-dna-code<p><img src="/images/dna.png" alt="DNA" class="right" />
From the perspective of information science, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA">DNA</a> is a code. It <em>“is a system of rules to convert information — such as a letter, word, sound, image, or gesture — into another form or representation”</em> (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code">Wikipedia on Code</a>). We know the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_code">rules</a><sup id="fnref:copyforward"><a href="#fn:copyforward" class="footnote">1</a></sup> and the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_expression">conversions</a>.</p>
<p>However, some people associate code or information to minds, to ideas, to meaning, to conscious control or design. In that case <em>DNA cannot be a code;</em> or one has to <em>posit some kind of intelligence</em> that predates life. Both extreme positions, both untenable.</p>
<p>The key insight is that meaningful recognition of input under some goal<sup id="fnref:entropygoal"><a href="#fn:entropygoal" class="footnote">2</a></sup> is not something exclusive to intelligence; <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_learning">learning algorithms</a> do the same without understanding (see <a href="/2018/05/01/understanding.html">previous</a> or <a href="/entropy-learning-free-will/">previous</a>). No matter how such a learning system works, it must have some kind of internal state and that must capture and encode information in some way.</p>
<h3 id="informational-entropy">Informational Entropy</h3>
<p>To see that DNA is a code, we can also take a more theoretical approach. Wherever we see things in some arrangement, we can calculate all possible arrangements and calculate how surprising the current arrangement is. This is called <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(information_theory)">informational entropy</a>. And using this we can state <em>exactly</em> what information is: the decrease of uncertainty at a reader<sup id="fnref:reader"><a href="#fn:reader" class="footnote">3</a></sup>.</p>
<p>Things with very low entropy, cannot represent much information. Things with really high entropy are random and cannot directly represent any information; however, the information might have been compressed or encrypted. Anything in between has immediately recognizable structure and can be used to directly represent information. The lower the entropy, the less efficient the information was encoded. But high entropy also means algorithmically complex to decode and not very flexible. The entropy of human language is around 0.7, DNA around 0.9 (normalized entropy where 1 is maximum).</p>
<p>From here things do become much more interesting, human language can be represented using bits, characters, syllables, or words. Every scale will calculate a different entropy, <a href="http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/17/4/1606/pdf">so what scale to choose (pdf)?</a> If you choose a good scale and use that to write language in, then you are writing close to maximum entropy. This is essentially what <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_compression">compression algorithms</a> do.</p>
<p><img src="/images/sanddunes.jpg" alt="sand dunes" class="left" />
Do note that <em>entropy is not meaning</em>. And for physical arrangements to carry information, there must be two levels of structure. The first level as the tokens or letters, for DNA these are the four <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleobase">nucleobases</a>, represented with the letters <em>ACGT</em>. The second level is where we look for information. That is why patterns in sand dunes, or patterns in marble, are not comparable to DNA or a page from a book<sup id="fnref:deeper"><a href="#fn:deeper" class="footnote">4</a></sup>.</p>
<h3 id="systems-and-control">Systems and Control</h3>
<p><img src="/images/loom-punchcards.jpg" alt="Jacquard Loom Punchcards" class="right" />
But DNA is more than code. It is information that guides many processes in a cell. Similar to how computer programs control the CPU and output of a computer. Or how the punchcards on the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacquard_loom">Jacquard loom</a> control the weaving pattern.</p>
<p>Describing this qualitatively is easy. Create a model of the system at reasonable scales, find the parts that causally influence the rest of the system the most, look at the degrees of freedom and how big the physical changes are compared to how much it changes the behavior of the system.</p>
<p>For all three examples, punchcards, CPU instructions, or DNA, we see that the degrees of freedom are almost unlimited and hardly a change to the physical system at all. While the amount of useful sequences is much smaller and some of those can have profound effects on the behavior or output of the system.</p>
<p>Quantifying this exactly and providing proof is however very difficult. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granger_causality">We can look at correlating time series</a>, helped by how much <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_entropy">informational entropy is transferred between systems</a>. Or <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/110/49/19790">measure at various scales, places and over time</a> and say something about causality and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence">emergence</a> (but see also <a href="https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3294">this critique</a> and <a href="https://www.erikphoel.com/blog/a-primer-on-causal-emergence">this response to it</a>). Or use <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/bies.10192">automata theory and information theory</a> to say something about complexity of organisms and their genotype and phenotype.</p>
<p>It does highlight one of my favorite topics. To understand complex systems, we must first use a reductionist approach to understand all the parts and interactions at various scales. But then zoom back out and construct causal models of the system as a whole.</p>
<p><img src="/images/complex-traffic.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<div class="footnotes">
<ol>
<li id="fn:copyforward">
<p>Because life accumulates information by a genetic algorithm, by constant self-replication, we can say something about what to expect. Namely that any mechanism that can copy information to the next generation will be utilized. So don’t expect life to use only “the rules”, but any other method as well; coloring far outside the lines, so to speak. All such other mechanisms we know of are called <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics">epigenetics</a>. Also don’t expect to find some kind of clean if-then-else structures, instead expect messy networks of interactions. And expect a strange paradox of local optimizations but global inefficiencies. <a href="#fnref:copyforward" class="reversefootnote">&#8617;</a></p>
</li>
<li id="fn:entropygoal">
<p>For life, (physical) entropy sets that goal. Namely, either have something tending to your existence, or yourself tend to it, or be in a constant state of decay and eventually disappear. Under the definition of a goal as a method for scoring outcomes. <a href="#fnref:entropygoal" class="reversefootnote">&#8617;</a></p>
</li>
<li id="fn:reader">
<p>A conscious observer, a computer program, a molecular machine, a mechanical machine (<a href="https://schneider.ncifcrf.gov/information.is.not.uncertainty.html">also see</a>). The reduction of uncertainty is a mathematical property, no mind or intelligence or meaning required. <a href="#fnref:reader" class="reversefootnote">&#8617;</a></p>
</li>
<li id="fn:deeper">
<p>Entropy is a very compressed statistical measure, having medium entropy is an indication there might be an encoding, but perhaps we are looking at a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_walk">random walk</a>, or some <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markov_chain">Markov chain</a>. Ideally we would like to be able to describe a third level structure that goes beyond a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_process">stochastic model</a>, like grammar rules, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Start_codon">start</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_codon">stop codons</a>, etc. <a href="#fnref:deeper" class="reversefootnote">&#8617;</a></p>
</li>
</ol>
</div>From the perspective of information science, DNA is a code. It “is a system of rules to convert information — such as a letter, word, sound, image, or gesture — into another form or representation” (Wikipedia on Code). We know the rules1 and the conversions. Because life accumulates information by a genetic algorithm, by constant self-replication, we can say something about what to expect. Namely that any mechanism that can copy information to the next generation will be utilized. So don’t expect life to use only “the rules”, but any other method as well; coloring far outside the lines, so to speak. All such other mechanisms we know of are called epigenetics. Also don’t expect to find some kind of clean if-then-else structures, instead expect messy networks of interactions. And expect a strange paradox of local optimizations but global inefficiencies. &#8617;What is Understanding?2018-05-01T00:00:00+00:002018-05-01T00:00:00+00:00http://onnlucky.com/2018/05/01/understanding<p><img src="/images/gearmind.jpg" alt="Understanding" class="right" />
Humans can understand and comprehend things like situations, messages, objects, other people, etc. They can think by applying concepts and reasoning, and by doing so can intelligently interact with the world. Some animals also show intelligence, but their level of understanding is much less than humans. But what does it mean to understand something? Can a machine ever understand something?</p>
<p>Like how calculators do math without understanding, so can learning happen without understanding. When a system can react to various inputs and can change how it reacts after a feedback signal. And if over time these changes cause less negative signal, then the system got better at reacting to the input, it has learned. In computer science, we know of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_neural_network">many</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm">algorithms</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_forest">that</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_Markov_model">can</a> do this.</p>
<p>What is learned is an approximation of the function that scores a reaction against some goal. That might sound redundant, it seems to imply there already exists a solution, but scoring how well a goal was reached is often much easier than actually achieving that goal; specification is easier than implementation. For this kind of learning to work, such a scoring function must exist. And the nature of the problem must be such that small changes towards a solution keep on scoring better.</p>
<p>Using these ideas, we can state what understanding is, namely when a person or a system sets its own goals and can score itself in light of those goals; when neither were pre-programmed nor externally given.</p>
<p>Such understanding can come about in learning systems that are trying to predict the input and predict the feedback by modeling<sup id="fnref:unsupervised"><a href="#fn:unsupervised" class="footnote">1</a></sup> the outside world. Much like how our brains<sup id="fnref:brain"><a href="#fn:brain" class="footnote">2</a></sup> are wired. A learning system where input is continuous and feedback can come in any time, or never at all. By predicting possible future input, the system can learn from mis-predictions, from surprises. Input can serve as feedback because there is some expectation, some understanding, of the input. By predicting, there can be more than reactions, there can be choices, a weighing of alternative predictions in light of one goal or many goals.</p>
<p><img src="/images/gears.jpg" alt="Gears" /></p>
<div class="footnotes">
<ol>
<li id="fn:unsupervised">
<p>At the moment computer science is moving closer to having a computer learn in this way. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsupervised_learning">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsupervised_learning</a> <a href="#fnref:unsupervised" class="reversefootnote">&#8617;</a></p>
</li>
<li id="fn:brain">
<p>“our brains are in essence prediction machines that strive to minimize surprise by recognizing patterns and associating them with other patterns” – <a href="https://medium.com/the-spike/generative-predictive-models-f39eb8f10584">https://medium.com/the-spike/generative-predictive-models-f39eb8f10584</a> <a href="#fnref:brain" class="reversefootnote">&#8617;</a></p>
</li>
</ol>
</div>Humans can understand and comprehend things like situations, messages, objects, other people, etc. They can think by applying concepts and reasoning, and by doing so can intelligently interact with the world. Some animals also show intelligence, but their level of understanding is much less than humans. But what does it mean to understand something? Can a machine ever understand something?The Universe as a Math Pattern2018-03-25T00:00:00+00:002018-03-25T00:00:00+00:00http://onnlucky.com/2018/03/25/math-universe<p><img src="/images/fractal3d.jpg" alt="Math Object: Fractal" class="right" />
What exists, is uncaused, eternal, doesn’t cause anything and never changes? Logic, math and the patterns of information. For example numbers like π or <em>e</em>. Or patterns like the Fibonacci sequence: <em>f(n) = f(n - 1) + f(n - 2) = 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, …</em></p>
<p>While we express them in human symbols, in the human choice of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal"><em>base-10</em></a>, or while for π we chose <em>circumference</em> divided by <em>diameter</em> instead of <em>radius</em>. Those choices don’t define these numbers, instead something real and objective is reflected in these numbers. On far away worlds, aliens would have discovered the same underlying numbers.</p>
<h3 id="a-universe">A Universe</h3>
<p>There is a strange hypothesis that goes back all the way to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonism">plato</a> and is closely related to the ideas of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis">Tegmark’s</a>. It might sound strange, but it’s quite plausible and reasonable. Namely that the universe might be a mathematical pattern. That there is a plane of existence where all possible mathematical objects exist, like frozen crystals, uncaused, never changing, never causing anything, just existing.</p>
<p>Some of those objects have <em>internal causality</em>. Meaning that one state is computed from previous states, like how 21 is computed from 8 and 13 in the Fibonacci sequence. And for patterns like <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_110">Rule 110</a> this <em>internal causality</em> is <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_completeness">Turing complete</a>, which means in principle it’s able to represent any computer program.</p>
<p>This hypothesis posits that outside of the universe there is no causality, only eternal and frozen existence. That causality is an internal property of some of these patterns. In stark contrast with <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument">the deistic first cause argument</a> which posits a god has set everything else in motion, while lacking any satisfying explanation for what sets this god in motion.</p>
<p><img src="/images/time-frozen.png" alt="" /></p>
<h3 id="experiencing-time">Experiencing Time</h3>
<p>How can there be time, or the experience of time, if these objects are completely frozen? Because on the inside these patterns can represent computation. And in the patterns with that property we might be able to find many interesting semi-stable sub-patterns of closely interacting states. If we trace one, highlighting its path through this frozen crystal, we might see it is learning, picking up changes, and interacting with other traces.</p>
<p>If it were possible to take this outside perspective, we could look at the beginning, middle or end of such a trace. It is completely frozen after all. But from the inside, step by step, this small sub-pattern is learning, maybe even imagining futures and making choices. A <a href="/entropy-learning-free-will/">mechanistic and fully fixed universe</a>, but it doesn’t <a href="https://psyarxiv.com/387h9">feel that way to these learning</a> entities who cannot experience the outside, only the inside, one step at the time.</p>
<center>Computation in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_110">Rule 110</a></center>
<p><img src="/images/rule110.png" alt="" /></p>What exists, is uncaused, eternal, doesn’t cause anything and never changes? Logic, math and the patterns of information. For example numbers like π or e. Or patterns like the Fibonacci sequence: f(n) = f(n - 1) + f(n - 2) = 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, …Proportional Skepticism2018-03-20T00:00:00+00:002018-03-20T00:00:00+00:00http://onnlucky.com/2018/03/20/skepticism<p>In every day language, being <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism">Skeptical</a> means having doubts or reservations. Skepticism in the more philosophical sense it is the stance that real knowledge<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1" class="footnote">1</a></sup> is not possible. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptical_movement">Scientific skepticism</a> uses this doubt and the insight that certainty is impossible, to focus on the adequacy of the evidence.</p>
<p>I’ll use the words of Richard Feynman to set the stage.</p>
<center><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hz2SENYI1rE" frameborder="0" allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen=""></iframe></center>
<blockquote>
<p>“We can always prove any definite theory wrong. Notice however, we never proof it right.” — Feynman</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>“You cannot prove a vague theory wrong.” — Feynman</p>
</blockquote>
<h2 id="how-do-we-come-to-knowledge">How do We Come to Knowledge?</h2>
<p>I personally like to start with how we come to know things about the world, which is very insightful for what we can expect from our knowledge. To learn about the world we need:</p>
<ol>
<li>the ability to observe;</li>
<li>to recognize patterns in the observations;</li>
<li>to predict using those patterns;</li>
<li>to recognize and remember patterns that predict observations well;</li>
<li>eventually, to figure out the causes behind<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2" class="footnote">2</a></sup> the patterns.</li>
</ol>
<p>This is how babies begin to learn before they can use reason. That last step is how we come to common sense understandings. This is also how science works, with a strong emphasis on hypothesizing causes and testing their calculated predictions, needed because humans are prone to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases">simplistic intuitions and confirmation bias</a>.</p>
<p>This view on how we form knowledge is itself a pattern, one that predicts that following this pattern is a good way to gain knowledge, a prediction that matches observations. This view on knowledge is self-confirming.</p>
<p>This view also shows why knowledge is so useful. It allows us to make informed guesses about the future, act towards those futures that we want, or try to avoid futures that we don’t want. And we know we are on the right track when our knowledge makes us more effective in the world.</p>
<h2 id="being-human">Being Human</h2>
<p>As human beings, we look for more than just knowledge, we also look for meaning. We want to know what our options are <em>and</em> we want to make choices in line with our values and our preferences. The full picture looks like this:</p>
<center><p><img src="/images/world-mind.png" width="400" height="400" alt="world, mind. observe, interpret, options, actions" /></p></center>
<p>Our knowledge is a collection of beliefs, these beliefs should explain what is going on and predict the options that are available. Our preferences should inform which option to choose. When we are not as effective as we want to be, we should try to update some of our beliefs or our preferences or both. But this is the hard part:</p>
<ul>
<li>How do you recognize your own ineffectiveness?</li>
<li>How do you recognize an incorrect belief?</li>
<li>How do you recognize what you really want?</li>
</ul>
<p>In essence, all we observe<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3" class="footnote">3</a></sup> is light coming in through our eyes and sounds vibrating in our ears. We have to interpret these observations using layers of beliefs before we can recognize the more complicated systems<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4" class="footnote">4</a></sup>. What if this process went wrong somewhere and you find yourself with a set of mostly consistent beliefs, but unable to see that some are incorrect.</p>
<h2 id="role-of-skepticism">Role of Skepticism</h2>
<p>This is where skepticism can play a role. Instead of holding on to beliefs dogmatically, you should use them where they make you effective. And instead of going all in, or all out, you should trust a belief proportionally to the evidence you have for it.</p>
<p>The diagram above shows two important things about beliefs:</p>
<ol>
<li>Beliefs should predict as well as explain;</li>
<li>Preferences should only be involved in choices, and have no place in beliefs, explanations or predications.</li>
</ol>
<p>Otherwise your beliefs might feel justified, while they are not, because:</p>
<ol>
<li>When a belief is vague, it can explain anything;</li>
<li>When preferences are used to select the evidence, any belief can be confirmed.</li>
</ol>
<p>Or using the words of Prof. Feynman again:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“If the process of computing the consequence is indefinite, then with a little skill, any experimental result can be made to look like an expected consequence.” — Feynman</p>
</blockquote>
<p><img src="/images/brain-sketch.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<div class="footnotes">
<ol>
<li id="fn:1">
<p>This is easily misunderstood as the claim that nothing can be know about the world. That as such a skeptic would not even be able to eat, not knowing what food is. But knowledge here is defined in philosophical terms as justified true beliefs, which from an epistemological perspective has all kinds of problems, or so the skeptic would argue. A skeptic would eat, knowing he could be wrong about what he is about to put in his mouth. The food might have spoiled and make him sick, might have been poisoned and kill him, or might be a skillfully crafted replica with zero taste or calories. <a href="#fnref:1" class="reversefootnote">&#8617;</a></p>
</li>
<li id="fn:2">
<p>One example is math, we notice the pattern of one thing, then another thing, always leads to two things. A different type of example is fire, for a long time humans knew how to make fire and how to keep it under control. But only with modern science we could figure out the underlying causes, namely sustained exothermic chemical reactions. <a href="#fnref:2" class="reversefootnote">&#8617;</a></p>
</li>
<li id="fn:3">
<p>We also observe our own mind. We can observe our emotional states. And we can observe our beliefs, our preferences and our thought process. <a href="#fnref:3" class="reversefootnote">&#8617;</a></p>
</li>
<li id="fn:4">
<p>Think about the value of a hundred dollar bill. It’s just atoms arranged in certain ways. But we recognize the printing on it as numbers. We recognize how long we have to work to earn it, how easily it is spend. We have some idea on how the economy works, the government that prints it, etc., layers upon layers of systems and interpretations. <a href="#fnref:4" class="reversefootnote">&#8617;</a></p>
</li>
</ol>
</div>In every day language, being Skeptical means having doubts or reservations. Skepticism in the more philosophical sense it is the stance that real knowledge1 is not possible. Scientific skepticism uses this doubt and the insight that certainty is impossible, to focus on the adequacy of the evidence. This is easily misunderstood as the claim that nothing can be know about the world. That as such a skeptic would not even be able to eat, not knowing what food is. But knowledge here is defined in philosophical terms as justified true beliefs, which from an epistemological perspective has all kinds of problems, or so the skeptic would argue. A skeptic would eat, knowing he could be wrong about what he is about to put in his mouth. The food might have spoiled and make him sick, might have been poisoned and kill him, or might be a skillfully crafted replica with zero taste or calories. &#8617;The Irony of Presuppositionalism2018-03-11T00:00:00+00:002018-03-11T00:00:00+00:00http://onnlucky.com/2018/03/11/presuppositionalism<p><img src="/images/fractal.jpg" alt="Math Object: Fractal" class="right" />
There is a line of argumentation that can really get a believer stuck on a position without being able to interpret any information to the contrary. This is <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presuppositional_apologetics">presuppositional apologetics</a>.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Any argument presupposes a rational universe, of which only <strong>God</strong> can be the basis, any argument against this automatically fails. It’s like using your voice to argue sound does not exist. The very act of speaking confirms sound, the very act of <strong>reasoning confirms God</strong>.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>At its core it is a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question">begging the question</a> fallacy. If (1) god exists, and (2) god is the only reason for a rational universe, then the very use of reason is confirming god. But if either (1) or (2) are incorrect<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1" class="footnote">1</a></sup>, then we should be looking for other reasons.</p>
<h3 id="by-the-same-logic">By the Same Logic</h3>
<p>The fun thing about fallacies is that, if we assume their logic is correct for just a little while, then we can use the same fallacy to show contradicting conclusions with equal validity. For example, the <a href="/2018/03/25/math-universe.html">math-hypothesis</a>: math and logic exist, objectively<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2" class="footnote">2</a></sup>, abstractly, uncaused, unchanging, eternal, but lacking any causal powers; it does however have patterns, those have internal causality. Maybe the universe is one of those patterns, such would be clockwork-like and thus a rational universe.</p>
<p>Now we can play the same game:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Any argument presupposes a rational universe, of which only <strong>math and logic</strong> can be the basis, any argument against this automatically fails. It’s like using your voice to argue sound does not exist. The very act of speaking confirms sound, the very act of <strong>reasoning confirms math and logic</strong>.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In response to any argument the other side makes, just reiterate they are confirming math and logic. And that by doing so they are borrowing from your worldview. If they ask why, restate the hypothesis that the universe is a mathematical pattern. Restate that their worldview is incomplete and inconsistent without this. That anything they try to show using logic, is necessarily within the domain of logic, thus smaller than logic.</p>
<p>Of course, doing so is entirely fallacious and very annoying. This all holds a great <em>irony</em>, the presuppositional apologetic is claiming that <strong>bad reasoning confirms God</strong>.</p>
<h3 id="more-correct-presuppositions">More Correct Presuppositions</h3>
<p>To <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regress_argument">justify our beliefs</a>, we have to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom">start with some assumptions</a>. But all we need is<sup id="fnref:3"><a href="#fn:3" class="footnote">3</a></sup> (<a href="/2018/03/20/skepticism.html#how-do-we-come-to-knowledge">also see next post</a>):</p>
<ol>
<li>the ability to observe;</li>
<li>to recognize patterns in the observations;</li>
<li>to predict using those patterns;</li>
<li>to recognize and remember patterns that predict observations well;</li>
<li>eventually, to recognizing what causes the the patterns.</li>
</ol>
<p>This is how babies begin to learn before they can use reason. This is how we come to common sense understandings. This is how science works, with a strong emphasis on predictions and testing. Even these assumptions themselves are a pattern, one that predicts following this method is a good way to gain knowledge, a <em>prediction that matches observations quite well</em>.</p>
<p>And no god appears in that description, to believe one exist, it should be justified by what we observe<sup id="fnref:4"><a href="#fn:4" class="footnote">4</a></sup>. But instead we <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)">found and described</a> a mechanistic universe filled with causes and effects, we call those the laws of physics. And we have no objective observations that these can be broken. We did find out that <a href="/entropy-learning-free-will/">within these laws, learning is possible</a>, and that is how we are here, observing the universe.</p>
<p><img src="/images/andromedia.jpg" alt="Andromedia" /></p>
<div class="footnotes">
<ol>
<li id="fn:1">
<p>Both (1) and (2) are claims. Neither have been demonstrated to be true. Especially if god can act and make choices, then (2) is a very shaky proposition. <a href="#fnref:1" class="reversefootnote">&#8617;</a></p>
</li>
<li id="fn:2">
<p>To show math objectively exist, think about the number π, it is expressed in human symbols; human base 10; human choice of circumference divided by diameter and not radius. But it reflects an underlying, unit-less, constant, that can be found and confirmed independently. Aliens would find it too. <a href="#fnref:2" class="reversefootnote">&#8617;</a></p>
</li>
<li id="fn:3">
<p>Most philosophical axiomatic systems don’t actually articulate their axioms, but start with axioms like reality exists, math and logic work, and reasoning works. I like to focus instead on the method that generates knowledge. <a href="#fnref:3" class="reversefootnote">&#8617;</a></p>
</li>
<li id="fn:4">
<p>Believers often think they have extracted a pattern from observations. Usually experiences of when trusting god worked out, or feelings of guidance, or healing. But this is only step (1), (2) extracted with hindsight, and fails at step (3) and (4). <a href="#fnref:4" class="reversefootnote">&#8617;</a></p>
</li>
</ol>
</div>There is a line of argumentation that can really get a believer stuck on a position without being able to interpret any information to the contrary. This is presuppositional apologetics.Romans 1, Paul vs Civilization2018-03-06T00:00:00+00:002018-03-06T00:00:00+00:00http://onnlucky.com/2018/03/06/romans-1<p><img src="/images/paul.jpg" alt="Apostle Paul" class="right" />
In the letter to the Romans, one of the books in the bible, the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Apostle">Apostle Paul</a> argues his case for god and how we should believe. Analyzing the <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1&amp;version=NIV">first chapter</a>, we can see two factual mistakes and one incorrect intuition.</p>
<h3 id="subjective-view">Subjective View</h3>
<p>His first mistake is how he subjectively slices the world into good and bad. Saying all good things are from god and what believers do; all bad things are worldly and what unbelievers do. Of course, this way god and believers come out very favorable.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, ‘The righteous shall live by faith’.” <small>(Romans 1:17)</small></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>“And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness.” <small>(Romans 1:28,29)</small></p>
</blockquote>
<p>But an objective look at statistics shows this cannot be the case. For societies with similar levels of wealth, less religion predicts less crime<sup id="fnref:1"><a href="#fn:1" class="footnote">1</a></sup>. That disproves Paul’s implicit prediction, that more people living with god, means fewer people doing bad things.</p>
<h3 id="bad-evidence-of-creation">Bad Evidence of Creation</h3>
<p>His second mistake is about what counts as evidence for creation. We might give Paul a pass here, in his time the knowledge to explain this well had not yet been developed, though much more accurate ideas were available<sup id="fnref:2"><a href="#fn:2" class="footnote">2</a></sup>.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” <small>(Romans 1:20)</small></p>
</blockquote>
<p>We live in a universe of mechanistic causes and effects. Dominated by what we call entropy, the tendency for things to decay, to fall apart, to stop working. Useful things, like a house, don’t just appear, they need to be created. Therefor it stands to reason that both earth and life have a creator, or so theists would argue.</p>
<p>But there are two things that go against the <a href="/entropy-learning-free-will/">tendency of entropy</a>, attractive forces and learning systems. At the large scale of space, gravity attracts matter. This causes endless arrays of globes with discs at various scales: galaxies; star systems; planets. At a much smaller scale, electromagnetism can cause beautifully shaped crystals like quartz.</p>
<p>But most special of all is chemical self-replication, because it automatically embodies a learning system. Similar in function to the algorithms by which we train computers to recognize human speech, drive cars, or recognize cats in videos. Chemical self-replication, also known as evolution, is what shaped life.</p>
<h3 id="bad-intuitions">Bad Intuitions</h3>
<p>We can get a much clearer picture of the world, and see another of Paul’s mistakes, when we redefine a god as “anything bigger than us, that exerts power over us, but that we do not control”. Under that definition, a hurricane is a god, so would be a flood, or diseases. Gravity would be the god that shapes stars and planets. Chemical self-replication would be the god that shapes life-forms. All gods, but without minds.</p>
<p>Moreover so would market forces be a god. Tradition and culture be a god. And civilization itself be a god. One that gives peace, food, schools, doctors, economic progress, if properly honored by being a decent human being.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.” <small>(Romans 1:28)</small></p>
</blockquote>
<p>If what Paul writes here were true of an actual god, he would have to be a monster, actively punishing non-belief by means of mind control.</p>
<p>But if it were a mindless god, a system of interactions where certain choices have certain consequences, then it all makes sense. Live by lying, stealing or worse, and you are corrupting the world around you, which in the long run is bad, even for yourself.</p>
<h3 id="conclusion">Conclusion</h3>
<p>Everybody is free to believe what they want, or to live by what convinces them. But it is better to first be an <em>honest</em>, <em>open</em> and <em>objective</em> observer of the world, and then make <em>your</em> <em>choices</em> according to <em>your</em> <em>preferences</em>.</p>
<p>Paul goes on for 16 chapters, but after these three initial mistakes, I doubt he has any knowledge of an actual god, an actual invisible mind that somehow exerts power over us.</p>
<p>Many have the intuition that a believe in god leads to moral people and a better world. But why can that not be replaced with a believe in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism">humanism</a>? We are all invested in society and the world at large, the better it is, the better off we are, the better off our loved ones are.</p>
<div class="footnotes">
<ol>
<li id="fn:1">
<p><a href="https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/09/daily-chart">economist.com: The Devil’s in the Deterrent</a> <a href="#fnref:1" class="reversefootnote">&#8617;</a></p>
</li>
<li id="fn:2">
<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_rerum_natura">De Rerum Natura (On the Nature of Things)</a> <a href="#fnref:2" class="reversefootnote">&#8617;</a></p>
</li>
</ol>
</div>In the letter to the Romans, one of the books in the bible, the Apostle Paul argues his case for god and how we should believe. Analyzing the first chapter, we can see two factual mistakes and one incorrect intuition.